We knew the Janus case was coming. Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. Remember, the public sector unions dodged a bullet back in 2016 when Justice Scalia died. The Supreme Court then split 4-4 on keeping agency fees (fees paid by non members) legal for unions in the Friedrichs case. After reading today's oral arguments in the nearly identical Janus case, I think I can say without too much reservation that things did not go well for the unions.
Unless there is a miracle, each one of us will get to decide if we want to pay union dues or not in the not too distant future. Make no mistake about it, the unions, whether we like the leadership or not, will be weakened.
Janus is arguing that paying union dues if he is not a union member is compelling him to associate against his will with an organization and thus speak against his will. This he claims violates his First Amendment rights. The unions counter that since non-members benefit from what unions do, they should have to pay for it. They cite Abood as a 1977 9-0 precedent where the Supreme Court said agency fees for non-union members were constitutional.
That was in a different time back in 1977. By getting soft and trying to play concessionary games with the powers that be, unions have gotten nowhere. Today just confirmed that.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote, lays out the conservative goals in this excerpt from today's oral argument from the SCOTUS blog that I think gets to the core of the matter.
When Illinois solicitor general David Franklin took his turn at the lectern, Kennedy – who is often regarded as a key vote in high-profile cases – left little doubt about where he stood. “What we are talking about here,” Kennedy said sternly, “is compelled justification and compelled subsidization of a private party, a private party that expresses political views constantly.” Later on, Kennedy asked attorney David Frederick, who appeared on behalf of the union, whether, if the unions lose, they “will have less political influence.” When Frederick answered “yes,” Kennedy shot back, “Isn’t that the end of this case?”
Unless Donald Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch is a closet liberal, this case is over and it's time to think about a post Janus world for government employees.
If you are hoping the unions lose so you can stop paying dues, all I can say is be careful what you wish for, you may very well get it.
Kennedy explained what this case is all about: decreasing working peoples' political influence.
For those who want to read the entire transcript of today's oral arguments, go here.
James, reread all the complaints in previous threads.
ReplyDeleteMulgrew and Weingartern killed the UFT.
ReplyDeleteGorsich eyes al are just the gravediggers.
To the rank and file this is just a fine opportunity to stop enabling Mulgrew's addictions to power, sex and deli takeout.
I read the whole thing, the amsce counsel seems to get his ass handed to him. Constantly on defense, going around in circles, changing story and view....No good for the unions. If this is the best the unions of America could muster I’ll hire my own if ever needed.
ReplyDeleteGood. Those low lifes at 52 are going to have to work for their salaries like everyone else. Arundel and Sill will have to back to the checkout counter at Walgreens. Leroy will go to the post office. Sterling and Mulgrew will start a topless joint with new grads from our famed high schools - no charge for Randi, she'll screen the girls a la Weinstein.
ReplyDeleteIm weak
ReplyDeleteyou reap what you sow
ReplyDeletewhat is wrong with people....yes the uft has not been the most reliable source these days but by pulling out you are doing exactly what the reformers want you to do so they can break our union.....why are people so self destructive based on nonsense and then forgetting everything our union has worked for us for so many years....come on people smarten up. remember do not let anger make your decisions in life and people are letting their anger dummy them up...do not let the koch bros. piece of garbage humans win out....this is exactly what they want for you to pull out of the union then they will pay you $15 per hour.
ReplyDeleteAll is not lost if the Supreme Court finds for Janus. Postal workers are not required to join their union but they have a very strong union. NALC and APWU are very powerful unions with voluntary membership. The Postal Service is a very abusive employer and most of their workers know they must have a strong union.
ReplyDeleteI want another union, not the UFT. I’ll do my part and get 60 signatures.
ReplyDeleteIts bad now, but it will get worse is not the answer. If the uft wins this case, 2 seconds after they win, we will hear, "HAHA, we won, you suckers keep paying $60 per check, nothing will improve, get little to no raises, wait for the retro, get cursed and threatened by students with no consequences, no discipline code improvements, 6 observations, danielson, etc...Its our only way to give a fuck you to someone.
ReplyDeleteI see that they will lose influence but is it really that bad? Maybe this will tell unions like the UFT they really need to listen to their members and truly fight for them.
ReplyDeleteWell, better get that new contract done, 3 years, 4 plus 4 plus 4, with $1k lump...and the TDA back to 8.25.
ReplyDeleteYeah, not taking the uft garbage anymore, sometimes we need to make a change or an uprising, I will take my chances with not paying dues. Been fooled and fucked too many times. Too much bad has happened.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: If a new contract gets ratified over the summer, could it become effective on the first day of school in Sept or not till Oct 2nd? Also, are those of us who still have our next 3 lump sum payments guaranteed that we will get them in the next contract?
ReplyDeleteI disagree James, in the short term yes the UFT will be weakened but in the long run it will be far stronger than today. Flush out the career union fatcats
ReplyDeleteYou are 100% correct. A few yrs of austerity might wake them up and remind Mikey he works for us!
DeleteI laughed out loud this morning morning when I got the email from Mulgrew about declaring being union proud while at the same time declaring that the end of the world is here. Did he mention one item that he will fight for us in the new contract? Is he going to fight Danielson, the ATR fiasco, fair student funding, 4 observations, vindictive principals, 4 observations, etc? He did not give me one reason at all to stay in the UFT. His email reeked of desperation. The email was showing that he is fearful for himself. He will be loosing dues dollars. He will loose his comfy lifestyle. But what is he offering us? NOTHING! Screw him and his BS.
ReplyDeleteWV just got 5% raise.
ReplyDeleteQuestion for all: What leverage will the UFT have with the city to get a decent contract if 30% leave the union?
ReplyDeleteshouldve thought about that before the 2014 contract.
ReplyDeleteso what happens when we dont leave then we still get destroyed, who is the joke on? us...
ReplyDeleteWe need to have a better union, not go to work without a union. I fought the 2014 and 2005 contracts with everything I had. I still support being in a union.
ReplyDelete